Jennifer Whiting

This chapter, a new explanation of Plato’s argument against hedonism, and a new, unified, account of his argument that there are ‘false pleasures’. It reads Plato’s argument as cumulative, involving different but related senses of ‘false’, one that appeals in the end to the _foolishness_ of certain pleasures, which foolishness the subject cannot himself appreciate while he is in their grip. Thus, Plato entertains the _corrigibility_ of present-tense self-ascriptions of pleasure and thereby improves on the anti-hedonist arguments of his _Gorgias_. Whereas the _Gorgias_ appeals to shamefulness, the _Philebus_ appeals to foolishness, which is content-neutral, and hence represents an improvement: the die-hard hedonist is more easily brought to worry that he is a fool than that he is a knave. Moreover, Plato anticipates Aristotle’s appeal to the “formal criteria” for something’s counting as the good, one of Aristotle’s many debts to the _Philebus_.

Aristotle is committed to the existence of essentially ensouled bodies, and says that such bodies are purely of animal matter. Ackrill has argued that this commitment conflicts with Aristotle’s primary conception of matter as potentiality and as the substratum of generation and destruction. This essay contends that Ackrill’s problem can be solved by allowing that there is a sense in which the matter of an animal is only contingently related to its form, and that this can be done without undermining Aristotle’s arguments for introducing ensouled bodies in the first place.

I challenge the claim behind Harry Frankfurt’s infamous treatment of Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia as tantamount to self-sacrifice—namely, that identification with one’s beloved is ‘conceptually necessary’ for love of any form. Because this claim is rooted in Frankfurt’s conception of self-love as the ‘purest’ form of love, with parents’ love of their offspring a close second, I appeal to the conceptual coherence of two accounts of love that fail to assume any such identification (either psychological or ontological) and also treat mothers’ love for their children as paradigmatic of concern for another qua other: Aristotle’s account of the (ideal) friend as an ‘other self’, which properly read makes no demand for identification; and Iris Murdoch’s ideal of ‘unselfing’, which seems to reject the demand for identification. The essay concludes by comparing Frankfurt’s treatment of Agamemnon’s sacrifice with Sethe’s sacrifice of her daughter in Toni Morrison’s Beloved.

Aristotle is committed to the existence of essentially ensouled bodies, and says that such bodies are purely of animal matter. Ackrill has argued that this commitment conflicts with Aristotle’s primary conception of matter as potentiality and as the substratum of generation and destruction. This essay contends that Ackrill’s problem can be solved by allowing that there is a sense in which the matter of an animal is only contingently related to its form, and that this can be done without undermining Aristotle’s arguments for introducing ensouled bodies in the first place.

This book comprises essays centered on Aristotle’s objectivist conception of eudaimonia, especially the roles played in it by activities of theoretical and practical intellect and the quality of our relationships with one another. Common objections to grounding this conception in the “proper function” of a human being are answered by appeal to the role played by Aristotle’s teleologically driven essentialism. His struggle to reconcile living in accordance with distinctively human virtues with the ideal of living a “divine” contemplative life is explored, along with puzzles about how to reconcile his conception of eudaimonia as the ultimate end of human action with the parallel requirements that virtuous agents choose to engage in virtuous action “for itself” and that friends love their friends “for themselves.” Readings of Aristotle’s “eudaimonism” as a form of rational egoism are challenged by appeal to an original account of the ideal friend as an “other self,” one that stresses appreciation of the friend’s character “for itself” (apart from any relationships in which it happens to stand to the agent’s own needs and/or tastes) but acknowledges the role played by pleasure in “character friendship.” The friend’s good is not, as on “colonizing ego” readings, part of the agent’s own. Rather, the ideal friend recognizes the value her friend’s activity has for him and she take pleasure in his activity as such. This explains why even the maximally self-sufficient (and so most godlike) agent, who needs nothing from a friend, will nevertheless want to have at least one.

Essays on Aristotle's "hylomorphism" - i.e., his conception of an organism's body as standing to its soul as matter (hulê) to form (morphê). Common readings - that there is only one form per species and that matter is what distinguishes individuals within a species from one another - are rejected in favor of the view that each member of a biological species has its own numerically distinct form. Original grounds are given for Aristotle's conception of soul as "the form and essence" of an organic body: he thinks it needed to account for the distinction between generation and destruction simpliciter and the mere alteration of existing stuff. The compatibility of this with Aristotle's conception of matter as the substratum of coming-to-be and passing-away is defended by appeal to a distinction between functionally defined organic parts (such as eyes) and the elements that constitute them. An original reading of the perceiving part of soul as one with the desiring part is given and asymmetries afforded by Aristotle's teleology explored. "Normative" cases (where formal explanations dominate) are contrasted with "defective" ones (where matter is incompletely "mastered" by form), with special attention to akratic subjects: their desires are not fully mastered by practical reason, which stands in normative cases as form to matter. The role played by Aristotle's conception of soul in his account of rational agency is employed against the dogma that he lacked the allegedly "modern" conception of "self" found in Locke and an original reading of Locke's account of personal identity is developed.

This collection of essays contains revised versions of papers delivered at a conference entitled “Duty, Interest, and Practical Reason: Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics” that was organized by Stephen Engstrom and Jennifer Whiting at the University of Pittsburgh in 1994. One of the main aims of the conference was to bring together scholars on Aristotle, the Stoics, and Kant to reevaluate the common view that Greek and Kantian ethics represent fundamentally opposed conceptions of ethical theory and the roles of morality and happiness in practical reasoning. According to a common view, the ancients are eudaimonists; they derive or justify the virtues by showing how they contribute to the agent’s own eudaimonia or happiness. By contrast, Kant sharply criticizes eudaimonism for deriving or justifying morality in terms of happiness. This criticism applies to eudaimonism of all sorts, even Stoic eudaimonism, which is perhaps closer in some respects to Kant’s own views, and of which he is somewhat less critical than he is of other forms of eudaimonism. For Kant, moral duty and respect for the moral law must be grounded in reason itself and cannot be made to depend on any independent standard. These and related assumptions about ancient and Kantian ethics have helped structure much contemporary systematic work in ethical theory, as well as common conceptions of these ethical traditions. But this common view has been under reexamination lately; some of the most interesting work in the history of ethics in recent years has been in Greek and Kantian ethics, and much of it challenges one or another aspect of the received view of the ethical theory and moral psychology of Kant or the Greeks. However, with some exceptions, renewed interest and recent work in these two traditions has proceeded in parallel. The conference aimed to correct this, by bringing together some of the most distinguished scholars of ancient and modern ethics to compare and assess the role of moral duty and happiness in the two traditions. Most of the essays have such a comparative assessment as their main theme; but even those that focus more exclusively on one of the traditions contribute indirectly to this comparative assessment.

True to his longstanding bias against grand unifying theories, Hacking chooses to pursue these questions by focusing on a specific case of memory-thinking: the history of multiple personality. His excavation of the contemporary terrain leads him, however, to the surprisingly grand conclusion that the various sciences of memory—including neurological studies of localization, experimental studies of recall, and studies in the psychodynamics of memory—all emerged in connection with attempts to “scientize the soul,” as a result of which spiritual battles have been recast as scientific controversies “where we suppose there is such a thing as knowledge to be had”.

Against the traditional view that Aristotle recognizes only one form--a universal--for each infima species, I argue that Aristotle recognizes a plurality of numerically distinct individual forms for each. Chapter One argues that the Metaphysics' criteria for being a substance show that individual forms are substances. Chapter Three argues that individual forms are the principles of individuation for cospecific individuals. ;My main argument is that Aristotle's defense of the distinction between generation simpliciter and mere alteration requires the existence of intrinsic unities of form and matter, neither of which can survive apart from the other--the form of this matter and the matter of this form. For if matter simply comes to embody universal species forms, these forms will be accidents of that matter and all change, mere alteration. The intrinsic unity requirement leaves Aristotle two tasks--one to show that some forms are essentially enmattered, the other to show that some matter is essentially enformed. ;Chapter Four argues that Metaphysics vii performs the first task by arguing that the forms of natural objects are essentially enmattered; these forms themselves include the matter necessary if there is to be a plurality of cospecific forms and if these are principles of individuation. Chapter Six argues that Aristotle's defense of a pluralistic account of eudaimonia identifies men with essentially embodied practical intellects and so supports this account of essentially enmattered individual forms. ;Chapter Five argues that the De Anima performs the second task by arguing for the existence of functionally defined bodies which are essentially ensouled. These bodies are distinguished from the non-proximate matter which constitutes them at different times and which is only accidentally ensouled . Aristotle's account of abstraction shows how individual forms, proximate matter and compounds taken formally are the very same things considered or described in different ways

In her essay collection First, Second, and Other Selves: Essays on Friendship and Personal Identity, well-known scholar of ancient philosophy Jennifer Whiting gathers her previously published essays taking Aristotle's theories on friendship as a springboard to engage with contemporary philosophical work on personal identity and moral psychology. Whiting examines three themes throughout the collection, the first being psychic contingency, or the belief that the psychological structures characteristic of human beings may in fact vary, not just from one cultural context to another, but also from one individual to another. The second theme is the belief that friendship informs an understanding of the nature of the self, an idea that springs from Whiting's uncommon reading of Aristotle's writings on friendship. Specifically, Whiting explains a scenario in which a "virtuous agent" adopts a kind of impersonal attitude both towards herself and towards her "character" friends, loving both because they are virtuous; this scenario ties in with an examination of the Aristotelian concept of the ideal friend as an "other self," or a friendship that evolves from character rather than ego, as well as Whiting's meditation on whether or not a virtuous individual should have a "special" sort of concern for her own future self, distinct in kind from the concern that she has for others. The third theme is that of rational egoism, a concept that Whiting critiques, especially in the context of Aristotle's eudaimonism. The central tenet of the collection is the message that taking "ethocentric" attitudes both towards ourselves and towards our friends sheds light on the nature of personal identity and helps to combat ethnocentric and other objectionable forms of bias, a message that is becoming increasingly urgent in light of the recent deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.

My title refers to three accounts of interpersonal love: the rationalist account that Terence Irwin ascribes to Plato; the anti-rationalist but strikingly similar account that Harry Frankfurt endorses in his own voice; and the ‘ekstatic’ account that I – following the lead of Martha Nussbaum – find in Plato's Phaedrus. My claim is that the ekstatic account points to important features of interpersonal love to which the other accounts fail to do justice, especially reciprocity and a regulative ideal of equality.

Aristotle's requirement that virtuous actions be chosen for themselves is typically interpreted, in Kantian terms, as taking virtuous action to have intrinsic rather than consequentialist value. This raises problems about how to reconcile Aristotle's requirement with (a) the fact that virtuous actions typically aim at ends beyond themselves (usually benefits to others); and (b) Aristotle's apparent requirement that everything (including virtuous action) be chosen for the sake of eudaimonia. I offer an alternative interpretation, based on Aristotle's account of loving a friend for herself, according to which choosing a virtuous action for itself involves choosing it on account of those features of it that make it the kind of action it is, where these features include its intended consequences (such as the benefits it seeks to provide to others). I then suggest that Aristotle may take these consequences (including benefits to others) as contributing (and contributing non-instrumentally) to the agent's own eudaimonia, and that there is no conflict here with Aristotle's view that eudaimonia is an activity of the soul. For just as my activity of teaching is actualized in my students (provided they learn from me), so too my virtuous activity can be actualized in its beneficiaries. If this is right, then Aristotle's view is far from the Stoic (and proto-Kantian) view often attributed to him